Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

Yes. As somebody who is not a member of this committee, I appreciate the opportunity to put these questions. I thank the witnesses for their presentations. My first question is for the Commission for Aviation Regulation. Ms Mannion has been employed there since 2012. Is she aware that in 2012, Michael O'Leary attacked the regulator for being overstaffed and overpaid and claimed that Ryanair was a victim of the agency? If she is aware of it, what is her comment on it? Five years ago, Mr. O'Leary saw the regulating agency as a problem, but nowadays it does not appear to be a problem for him. The witnesses have talked about a partnership and harmonious relationship, the attempt to work with Ryanair and the attempt to solve the problem, yet there is no indication of the attempt, which is one of the commissioner's briefs, to implement and apply regulation. There is no indication in the commissioner's tone that it is what the Commission for Aviation Regulation tries to do with Ryanair. This is why everybody is making the comparison between it and the CAA in Britain. The head of the CAA, Andrew Haines, has made a mark. He had previously been accused of light touch regulation by pilots' associations and trade unions in Britain but he stands out markedly next to the record of Ms Mannion's agency by insisting that Ryanair complies with regulation and informs passengers they are entitled to be rerouted on other airlines. Mr. Haines has said that in some discourse with Ryanair, Michael O'Leary said he will not pay for passengers to fly on other airlines and that it is against the law. It is a regulation that passengers should know they are entitled to be rerouted on other airlines. Ms Mannion referred to the emails Ryanair sent out and said they had to discuss it, change the language a bit and make the message a bit different. Did she insist in that email that Ryanair point out to passengers very clearly what the British regulator forced it to point out under threat of enforcement, which is that passengers were entitled to be rerouted on other airlines? Does she interpret that regulation differently from the CAA?

I agree with Deputy Barry. There has been a shocking level of light touch regulation in this country and with regard to Ryanair. It is summed up for me by Mr. Haines when he says compliance culture in Ryanair only appears when it is forced into the courts and is otherwise wanting. I would like Ms Mannion to comment on that. I am not asking her to tear Mr. Haines apart but I would like her to comment on those very serious allegations by her counterpart in Britain.

One of the representatives of the Irish Aviation Authority said the issue of pilots' contracts was nothing to do with it and was for someone else. It is very much something to do with the IAA because it has to oversee safety regulations for flights, including for the pilots, the airline, the passengers, all of us sitting here and those who may be watching proceedings. We are very concerned that flights are run safely. There are a number of issues here to do with the contracts of pilots which the IAA does not seem to think has anything to do with it. It goes to the heart of the issue why, for ten years after the regulation was introduced in 2008, Ryanair did not apply it and change the annual leave year to run from January to December. If one speaks to any trade union in the airline industry or any of the pilots associations, they will say the 900 hours that were declared safe to work in a period were being worked by Ryanair pilots between April and March. They will say that most of those hours were being packed into the summer with hardly any hours given to pilots in the winter. There is a big concentration of Ryanair flights in the summer period and an awful lot of them do not exist in the winter period, which is the reason for Deputy Barry's comment about the type of contract under which pilots work. Are the witnesses aware of a London School of Economics study on pilot fatigue carried out on 7,000 pilots across Europe? It points out that the type of contract under which pilots work, whether precarious or permanent, and how the hours were managed very much impact on the safety of the airline because pilot fatigue is a problem. If the witnesses from the IAA are not aware of that study, I recommend they make themselves aware of it because it is a very highly recommended and comprehensive study carried out on 7,000 pilots across Europe.

The other issue is that in June 2016, Ryanair wrote to its pilots saying it would have to change the leave year around because of the regulation being imposed on it. It is my understanding from conversations with people in Europe that it was the European Aviation Safety Agency, EASA, that leaned heavily on the IAA to make sure the regulation was implemented. I would like the witnesses to comment on that. They have spoken about discussions with the EASA but I have been told it leans quite heavily on the IAA.

It would seem they may have had to because after ten years, Ryanair and Aer Lingus were the only ones not applying the rule that the operation of the 900 hours had to be within the January to December leave year. Ryanair told its pilots last June that it would apply this rule yet it went ahead and published its 2017 summer schedule. Did it not occur to the Irish Aviation Authority at any point that there was a problem in that this airline was coming up against a deadline to apply this regulation and yet it published its 2017 summer and winter schedules and sold many flights? Did it not wonder what would happen? That is not micro-management. Given the serious change the airline had to make in terms of the leave year, the authority should have been alerted automatically that a problem will arise for passengers and in terms of health and safety. The responsibility for passengers' complaints lies with the body represented by the witnesses sitting beside the witness, but there must have been an indication somewhere along the line that these issues matter. If they do not, then Michael O'Leary's complaint about being overpaid is fair enough.

I will make one other point on health and safety. Are the witnesses aware that a secret table detailing Ryanair's tracking of pilots' fuel use was sent to the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport some months ago? Has the Minister discussed that with them? Are they concerned that pressure might be put on pilots to fly with less fuel than would otherwise be the norm because it is more economical in that less fuel is needed to carry the weight of the fuel? Are the witnesses aware of any complaints or petitions from pilots in Ryanair that they were concerned about being pressurised to cut down on the amount of fuel they carry? If they were not aware of it, now that I have made them aware of it, are they concerned about that? Does that ring alarm bells with them? Would they be concerned, therefore, that the safety not just of the pilots in terms of the hours I spoke about and the fatigue that kicks in, but also the safety of the pilots and the passengers they carry is being compromised because of these shoddy practices?

I have a final question, and I am sorry for taking being slow but I have many notes with me. The aviation authority gave Ryanair a deadline until January 2018 to get its act together yet it informed its own pilots last June that they had to do this. The authority gave Ryanair almost two years because it had those discussions in February of 2016. It failed to comply in a proper way and then it made a mess of it, according to Ryanair. Does that not concern the civil aviation authority, in terms of the behaviour of this company, the impact on health and safety and the impact on the nearly 700,000 passengers who have been affected? If Bus Éireann or Dublin Bus unions did that, the sky would fall in, according to wider society. It would be an awful thing to happen, but this happens because of the behaviour of a company and there is hardly a word of criticism.

The question of light touch regulation, backing off Ryanair and having discourse with it rather than imposing regulation on it is a problem with both authorities and I would like the witnesses to comment on that.